Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Berkeley council upholds ZAB approval for Shattuck Corners, denies appeal
Summary
The Berkeley City Council voted June 3 to deny an appeal and affirm the Zoning Adjustments Board’s approval of a 28‑story mixed‑use project at 1950–1998 Shattuck Avenue, after testimony on CEQA exemption, infrastructure capacity and downtown vacancy concerns.
The Berkeley City Council voted on June 3 to deny an appeal challenging the Zoning Adjustments Board’s approval of a 28‑story mixed‑use project at 1950–1998 Shattuck Avenue, commonly referred to in the hearing as Shattuck Corners.
Planning staff summarized the project and recommended that the council affirm ZAB’s decision. Anne Hirsch, the city’s land use planning manager (speaker 6), said the proposal includes 599 units with 58 dedicated to very‑low‑income households, about 16,000 square feet of commercial space and a community benefits labor agreement, and that the project met the downtown area plan standards and the conditions for a Class 32 categorical CEQA exemption.
An appellant (speaker 21) argued the exemption was misapplied and raised multiple infrastructure and safety concerns: fire‑response limits above about 75 feet, possible sewer capacity issues during wet weather, and cumulative strain on regional transit. The appellant also pointed to downtown commercial vacancies and argued the project’s unit mix would not serve families or the broad local housing needs the city has identified.
The applicant’s representative (speaker 27) defended the entitlement and the developer’s use of state density bonus and infill provisions, asked for modest changes to a timing condition for building permits, and said the project team intends to protect existing tenants until construction is imminent.
Council members framed the decision inside state housing law. One council member (speaker 10) said state statutes limit local discretion over certain height and density decisions and that the downtown core is the appropriate place for taller buildings. Another council member (speaker 12) emphasized ongoing infrastructure and fire‑service upgrades the city and utility partners are pursuing.
After brief public comment and council discussion, a motion to deny the appeal and affirm the ZAB decision carried in roll call. The council instructed staff to incorporate the approved conditions of approval, including the timing requirements the applicant sought to adjust, and confirmed the appeal was dismissed.
The decision does not itself start construction; council and staff noted several additional steps remain, including building‑permit review, financing and coordination on infrastructure and public‑safety capacity.
